Or using the start of everything. Everything have a beginning but one. This one is called God and is the beginning of everything he must exist as a separate entity - separate from human brains since they were not created yet.

I can perform the same experiment right before your eyes. You can too, you might have trouble at first but anyone can learn how to pray God or... well, I suppose some people just refuse to accept God in to their lives....

How telling that you completely ignored the part in my last post mentioning that for the first 14 years of my existence I did indeed accept "God" in to my life. I sincerely believed in a loving father-figure type entity that would answer my prayers. And still I never once "heard" him. And still slowly but surely... a few of those people I had asked him to keep from harm either suffered from an illness, accident or even died of non-natural causes. Perhaps I was asking this omnipotent creator too much. Perhaps I should have kept things simple, like praying for me not to stub my toe.

Which leads us to this next "gem" of yours:

Quote

God won't protect people against their will. He can protect you.

If I prayed for God to keep from harm a loved one of mine who also believes in God, then by your logic his (God's) interference to keep them from harm would not only not be against their will, but would be graciously accepted, wouldn't you agree? After all, the logical opposite of your statement "God won't protect people against their will" is "God will protect people if it is their will".

And even if the subject of the prayer to be kept from harm was a non-believer or even a member of a different faith, that at the very instant when a prayer to keep a particular individual safe... say, in a horrific automobile accident... at any point said person is thinking anything along the lines of "You don't have my permission to intercede, God!" (against their will) is ludicrous, don't you think? "There are no atheists in foxholes", as the adage goes.

Quote

Which one? the one where I ask you to prove the existence of Math outside your mind?

You can pray him in the living room listen and hear him. Change room and pray him again, listen, you'll hear him. Same result every time.I can perform the same experiment right before your eyes. You can too, you might have trouble at first but anyone can learn how to pray God

You had proposed a hypothesis (to pray and listen and you will hear "God") by performing an experiment (testable) that would get the same result every time (verifiable). Whether knowingly or not, you had called upon the scientific method to make your case and I had accepted your challenge. So, go ahead. Prove it.

Quote

No I'm not. Where?

Yes you were. See above.

Quote

No. You won't impose you will on me. I won't impose mine on you.

One: I am not imposing anything. Consider it a suggestion.

Two. I am giving you my permission of my own free will.

Don't you have faith in your concept of "God" to be able to perform such a tiny miracle?

Quote

Then I don't understand the question.

My initial question:

Quote

Can your definition of "God" interact with the environment? Can He manipulate physical objects?

Your response:

Quote

He can, but won't. He will use me instead.

My follow up question:

Quote

Are you privy to how your concept of God operates at all times? Has your concept of God specifically told you that he will operate through you and you alone?

It's a yes or no question. I though you loved these types of questions?

Quote

Me or any believer (Mary was a believer) SO God worked through her to bring Jesus into this world. He didn't make Jesus appear out of nowhere. (even if he could've)

But you had previously stated that, and I quote, "He can, but won't" in regards to interacting with objects (or entities) or the environment:

This immaterial thing can either a. Interact with the material world - like you say your god canORb. Cannot interact with the material world.

I'm incline to say b) But there is this "God made it all" thing. So, he wrote the code of everything and hit run.

[/b]

Here, you have just stated that he directly interacted with Mary ("God worked through her "). So, obviously he both can and will interact with the material world when the mood suits him. So, since he has interacted with the material world (thus leaving behind "evidence"), it then follows that the actions ascribed to your concept of "God" are indeed susceptible to being proven or disproven through the scientific method.

<edited for spelling male instead of make>

« Last Edit: May 28, 2014, 03:49:16 AM by Disciple of Sagan »

Logged

The cosmos is also within us. We are made of star stuff.

The only thing bigger than the universe is humanity's collective sense of self-importance.

Everything have a beginning but one. This one is called God and is the beginning of everything he must exist as a separate entity - separate from human brains since they were not created yet.

This is just an assertion (a "because I say so"), and I already rebutted it in my first post to you in this OP. Why have you ignored it? If all you're going to do is merely ASSERT crap without evidence why bother debating here?

Btw, you seem to be arbitrarily excluding other possibilities - including that matter/energy (in some form) may have always existed. So merely asserting a "God" thing does nothing. It's just another one of your CLAIMS WITHOUT EVIDENCE.

If your god is different from those other gods, does he exist in a real, physical sense?

No. He is immaterial.

Here I repost from another thread:

In order for something to be a "being" it must have attributes (positive identifiable characteristics). Please demonstrate such characteristics for your alleged "God" thing. As others have noted, if your alleged deity has no identifiable characteristics (and does not clearly demonstrably manifest in the world - in non-vague fashion) then it is no different from fiction. Please note that I am not asking you for what this alleged deity DOES. I am asking you to demonstrate what this alleged deity IS. What is it made of? If you attempt to argue that it is made of "immaterial stuff" then you haven't given any positive attributes because "immaterial" is a negative term (i.e. - without material). You need to provide POSITIVE characteristics of what makes up this "thing" that allegedly exists independently of human thought (because things are not defined by what they are not. They are defined by what they are). If you attempt to argue that God is a "spirit", then you will be right back to square one again (because the question will still be unanswered). What IS a "spirit"? What is it made of? What are its positive characteristics? You will need to provide POSITIVE attributes of what an alleged "spirit" actually is, and what its actual characteristics are that can be referenced. Furthermore, even if you could provide a rational definition of such a term you would still have all of your work ahead of you to actually demonstrate that such a conception actually exists independently of human brains.

As such, I maintain that the term "immaterial", just like the terms "God" and "spirit" are meaningless and refer to nothing. x

Lemme guess EVERYTHING that exists must have a beginning, everything that is except the xian god .... and allah. and the rainbow serpent of indigenous Australia and....... no special pleading here.

luk circles exist, where is the starting point on a circle?

Logged

some skepisms, 1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it. Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

You know arguing luk requires no further points, now its all linking back and forth to all the other threads he had repeated himself on.

he even uses his own threads as quotable evidence for the point he is repeating.... see my evidence is my point i made here which is evidenced by the exact same point i linked here.... talk about self referential circularity.... he considers a win when everyone else just gets sick of posting and getting the same response.

Logged

some skepisms, 1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it. Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

So Luk's god is immaterial. I looked it up in the Free Dictionary which says -

Quote

immaterial (??m??t??r??l)adj1. of no real importance; inconsequential2. not formed of matter; incorporeal; spiritual

You know, I reckon the first definition fits best. His god can apparently not heal anyone as it affects their free will, it cannot do anything in the world as that would affect free will so one can really say that it is immaterial.

As to the second definition, the one Luk means, well it is philosophical term - in other words it is thought up but has not meaning in the real world as it has not been detected of even shown to exist.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

some skepisms, 1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it. Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Luk evidence yaweh and not another god made the universe, you did not answer you repeated yourself, it wasn't an answer the first time repeating doesn't magically make it become correct.

so assuming god made the universe how do you decide which god?

Logged

some skepisms, 1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it. Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

You simply have to accept that Anselm did not do a good job. There is no point trying to use his argument or anyone else's to show there is a god (anyone's god or a god of any sort) other than in your mind.

The mind is where god's live. First we have minds, then we have gods. Gods are the ignorant person's way of explaining why things happen. Gods are the things that punish bad people when we cannot punish them. Gods are the things that look after the poor and stupid on this earth by promising them a life in heaven.

Anselm’s mistake will become clearer if we define his terms in a less ambiguous way. I will rename Anselm’s different versions of God, as God-1 and God-2:

God-1 = God who exists in reality (the thing whose existence we are trying to prove).

God-2 = a God who exists only as an idea in the mind.

Now we can rephrase the argument:1.Nothing greater than God-1 can be imagined 2.God-2 exists. 3.God-1 is greater than God-2 4.If God-1 does not exist then we can imagine something greater than God-2 (i.e., God-1) 5.But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God-1 6.Therefore God-1 exists

You can see quite clearly now that the argument is bogus. Point 4 is where it goes wrong. It only appears to work because Anselm equivocates about the definitions of God-1 and God-2. This is what he is doing. He is trying to make point 4 sound like, “If God-1 does not exist then we can imagine something greater than God-1” (which would be a contradiction to point 1). But point 4 only makes sense as “…we can imagine something greater than God-2 (i.e., God-1),” as in my version. (Otherwise he is actually saying “If God-1 does not exist then we can imagine something greater than God-1 (i.e., God-1),” which is gibberish.) He hopes you won’t notice he changed God-2 to God-1 in point 5, setting up the contradiction to point 1. But he wasn’t talking about God-1 in point 4, so there is no contradiction. Consequently, point 6 “Therefore God-1 exists,” just doesn’t follow.

You cannot even get past the first step to be able to even use Anselm's ontological argument: provide evidence that your personal concept of "God" in your mind is the correct "definition" to be used in said argument in the first place, as there are as many personal concepts (definitions) of "God" as there are people whether or not they actually believe said "God" exists. Anyone who believes their personal concept of "God" is "a being than which none greater can be imagined" can insert said deity in to the equation and claim "proof" that it is "a separate entity separate from human brains".

Nowhere in these definitions suggests that conjecture (philosophical or otherwise) and opinion (personal or otherwise) equals evidence (immaterial beings or otherwise).

Oh, and in regards to this being applicable "when you talk about immaterial beings"? That caveat was of your own devising and thus irrelevant without evidence to support your claim.

In conclusion, you have purposefully and willingly supported an argument that is immune to any sort of independent testing and verification of evidence because, as both I and others have claimed, you have no actual evidence to present outside of philosophical conjecture and personal opinion. Period.

If anyone can imagine a god greater than Lukvance's god, then the greater-than-Lukvance's-god god has to exist. And it just stomped the sh!t out of Lukvance's god.

Oh well, so much for that......puny god.

+1 for the Hulk reference in "The Avengers".

But you're missing the greater point, nogods! There are literally billions upon billions of "Greater than thou" gods (one for each and every person who has ever contemplated what "God" means to them) according to Luk's pet "theory"!

I suggest a "Thunderdome" approach to settling the whole messy affair.

Logged

The cosmos is also within us. We are made of star stuff.

The only thing bigger than the universe is humanity's collective sense of self-importance.

If anyone can imagine a god greater than Lukvance's god, then the greater-than-Lukvance's-god god has to exist. And it just stomped the sh!t out of Lukvance's god.

Oh well, so much for that......puny god.

+1 for the Hulk reference in "The Avengers".

But you're missing the greater point, nogods! There are literally billions upon billions of "Greater than thou" gods (one for each and every person who has ever contemplated what "God" means to them) according to Luk's pet "theory"!

I suggest a "Thunderdome" approach to settling the whole messy affair.

Infinite gods go in, Hulk comes out! Yeah!

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

How telling that you completely ignored the part in my last post mentioning that for the first 14 years of my existence I did indeed accept "God" in to my life. I sincerely believed in a loving father-figure type entity that would answer my prayers. And still I never once "heard" him. And still slowly but surely... a few of those people I had asked him to keep from harm either suffered from an illness, accident or even died of non-natural causes. Perhaps I was asking this omnipotent creator too much. Perhaps I should have kept things simple, like praying for me not to stub my toe.

I did not forgot about it. I think I addressed it with the equivalent with math. (Still playing the devils advocate, I could say that I learned Math when I was young but it didn't work)

the analogy just isn't work and you should give it up. Love and maths are things that happen in our brain - electrical and chemical things. The atheists argue that your god is like that - something else that is part of the workings of the brain but has no independent reality. Apart from medieval philosophy you have not shown us a single reason to suspect that your god exists at all apart from in your brain.

If you really have no evidence for the existence of your god then, clearly, you should be asking yourself why you are not a atheist. Aside from that, atheists are not going to be swayed by arguments that lack evidence.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

How telling that you completely ignored the part in my last post mentioning that for the first 14 years of my existence I did indeed accept "God" in to my life. I sincerely believed in a loving father-figure type entity that would answer my prayers. And still I never once "heard" him. And still slowly but surely... a few of those people I had asked him to keep from harm either suffered from an illness, accident or even died of non-natural causes. Perhaps I was asking this omnipotent creator too much. Perhaps I should have kept things simple, like praying for me not to stub my toe.

I did not forgot about it. I think I addressed it with the equivalent with math. (Still playing the devils advocate, I could say that I learned Math when I was young but it didn't work)

Yes, you could say this. And it would be another false analogy fallacy since you have not shown that "math" or "numbers" exist outside the human brain.

the analogy just isn't work and you should give it up. Love and maths are things that happen in our brain - electrical and chemical things. The atheists argue that your god is like that - something else that is part of the workings of the brain but has no independent reality. Apart from medieval philosophy you have not shown us a single reason to suspect that your god exists at all apart from in your brain.

If you really have no evidence for the existence of your god then, clearly, you should be asking yourself why you are not a atheist. Aside from that, atheists are not going to be swayed by arguments that lack evidence.

What's even more interesting is that HE started this thread. And he made it specifically pertaining to an alleged "God" that exists independently of human minds. Yet when pressed on this point, he jumps right back into mental concepts again. Odd, isn't it? That should tell us something significant about his position.

Oh yeah, there is also the part about him picking the Catholic version because they allow him to eat bacon. Note to Lukvance: atheists also allow you to eat bacon.[pornographic reference to other things atheists would allow him to eat removed in deference to younger or more sensitive viewers.]

Did I cover the salient points of the past couple hundred posts?

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

If I prayed for God to keep from harm a loved one of mine who also believes in God, then by your logic his (God's) interference to keep them from harm would not only not be against their will, but would be graciously accepted, wouldn't you agree? After all, the logical opposite of your statement "God won't protect people against their will" is "God will protect people if it is their will".

Yes, God can protect you if you want. You don't know the state of the other person. Don't pray for God to protect someone else. Pray God to help you protect someone else.

Quote

And even if the subject of the prayer to be kept from harm was a non-believer or even a member of a different faith, that at the very instant when a prayer to keep a particular individual safe... say, in a horrific automobile accident... at any point said person is thinking anything along the lines of "You don't have my permission to intercede, God!" (against their will) is ludicrous, don't you think? "There are no atheists in foxholes", as the adage goes.

You are right. The person is not thinking "God help me" neither. Or "please, God, do what is best for me" neither. Anyway, the accident is already a consequence of someone saying no to God.

You can pray him in the living room listen and hear him. Change room and pray him again, listen, you'll hear him. Same result every time.I can perform the same experiment right before your eyes. You can too, you might have trouble at first but anyone can learn how to pray God

You had proposed a hypothesis (to pray and listen and you will hear "God") by performing an experiment (testable) that would get the same result every time (verifiable). Whether knowingly or not, you had called upon the scientific method to make your case and I had accepted your challenge. So, go ahead. Prove it.

Err, isn't that what I just did? Prove what? If I called upon the scientific method it wasn't on purpose. I just did the same thing you did with math. If it works for math it should work for God. If it doesn't work for God, it doesn't work for math neither. I thought I could try to demonstrate using the scientific method by following your demonstration where you used the scientific method. What is the difference between our 2 examples?

Quote

Yes you were. See above.

Still not saying it. See above. I still don't think that Math or God can be demonstrated using the scientific method.

Quote

Don't you have faith in your concept of "God" to be able to perform such a tiny miracle?

Miracles are not provoked that easily.

Quote

My initial question:

Quote

Can your definition of "God" interact with the environment? Can He manipulate physical objects?

Your response:

Quote

He can, but won't. He will use me instead.

My follow up question:

Quote

Are you privy to how your concept of God operates at all times? Has your concept of God specifically told you that he will operate through you and you alone?

It's a yes or no question. I though you loved these types of questions?

I do love them! Nevertheless I have to understand the question before answering them :sAs I understand it, my answer is No, God won't operate through me and me alone. He can operate through anyone willing to let him operate through them.

Quote

But you had previously stated that, and I quote, "He can, but won't" in regards to interacting with objects (or entities) or the environment:

"28 So "that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit."29 Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church's growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability "are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all"; they are "motives of credibility" (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is "by no means a blind impulse of the mind""[1]

Everything have a beginning but one. This one is called God and is the beginning of everything he must exist as a separate entity - separate from human brains since they were not created yet.

This is just an assertion (a "because I say so"), and I already rebutted it in my first post to you in this OP. Why have you ignored it? If all you're going to do is merely ASSERT crap without evidence why bother debating here? Btw, you seem to be arbitrarily excluding other possibilities - including that matter/energy (in some form) may have always existed. So merely asserting a "God" thing does nothing. It's just another one of your CLAIMS WITHOUT EVIDENCE.

I don't understand. What is the assertion? "everything has a beginning but one"?I don't see any rebutting. Just phrases without anything to support them.I don't exclude that matter/energy has always existed.

God won't answer prayers on behalf of other people. So god will not respond to prayers for a sick baby to get well, or to keep a soldier safe in a war zone, or for a teenager to get off drugs, or for a dictator to stop torturing people, or a friend to treat their spouse more kindly. Check. If any of those things do happen, it has nothing to do with god. Double check.

God will answer self-interested prayers, however. Like, please god, keep me from stubbing my toe, or please god, heal my cancer. But only if he feels like it, so you can never tell if it is really god or not. And don't go subjecting god to the scientific method, either, counting the hits and misses. God don't play dat.

God will sometimes do miracles, if he is in the mood, but not necessarily in response to prayer, even self-interested prayer. He might even do a random miracle where nobody has prayed at all. He just rolls that way. Sometimes.

Where are these "specific rules for correct prayer" written out for all to see? God seems more strict, and more erratic, than the TSA.

This one is called God and is the beginning of everything he must exist as a separate entity - separate from human brains since they were not created yet.

Circular reasoningLukvance:Hatter has replied to your Original Post at http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26874.msg617316.html#msg617316You simply have to accept that Anselm did not do a good job. There is no point trying to use his argument or anyone else's to show there is a god (anyone's god or a god of any sort) other than in your mind.The mind is where god's live. First we have minds, then we have gods. Gods are the ignorant person's way of explaining why things happen. Gods are the things that punish bad people when we cannot punish them. Gods are the things that look after the poor and stupid on this earth by promising them a life in heaven.

yeah... those mean something to you. Not to me. I don't have the slightest Idea of what you are talking about when you say "Special pleading" or "Circular reasoning" I looked up the definition of these terms and don't see how they apply here.

I agree with Graybeard. Luk's sole reliance on Anselm's ontological argument is a clear example of authoritarianism.Luk,It's time to get back to your attempt to justify how philosophical conjecture is all that is needed to transform a mental construct ("God") in to "a separate entity separate from human brains".Here is a rephrased version of Anselm's ontological argument that demonstrates it's faulty logic:From http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/08/ontological-argument-for-god-rebuttal.html

I don't see how this is like what I'm saying. He is using proof that I am not. (even if he is using some that I am)

Quote

You cannot even get past the first step to be able to even use Anselm's ontological argument: provide evidence that your personal concept of "God" in your mind is the correct "definition" to be used in said argument in the first place, as there are as many personal concepts (definitions) of "God" as there are people whether or not they actually believe said "God" exists. Anyone who believes their personal concept of "God" is "a being than which none greater can be imagined" can insert said deity in to the equation and claim "proof" that it is "a separate entity separate from human brains".

My proofs works for any kind of God you wish to conjure, as long as there is only one God (no multiple deity sh**)

Philosophical conjecture and personal opinion does equate to evidence when you talk about immaterial beings.

Since you put such high stock in "definitions"....[...]Nowhere in these definitions suggests that conjecture (philosophical or otherwise) and opinion (personal or otherwise) equals evidence (immaterial beings or otherwise).

I do agree with you...but you cut right before the good part. Immaterial beings, you can't cut my phrase like that and conclude something so much out of context.

Quote

Oh, and in regards to this being applicable "when you talk about immaterial beings"? That caveat was of your own devising and thus irrelevant without evidence to support your claim.

Caveat? Irrelevant? Easy to say....way harder to prove.

Quote

In conclusion, you have purposefully and willingly supported an argument that is immune to any sort of independent testing and verification of evidence because, as both I and others have claimed, you have no actual evidence to present outside of philosophical conjecture and personal opinion. Period.

in conclusion you are wrong. You imagining and cutting stuff as it would please you best. This is no way to respect someone. I gave you things to think about...philosophical proof of the existence of God outside of your mind. You just spurred "NO! because someone else said NO already" even if that someone and me are not talking about the same thing.We are already on a good path with our other comments. Let's stay on that one. I feel like this reply is just out of the way coming from you.

If anyone can imagine a god greater than Lukvance's god, then the greater-than-Lukvance's-god god has to exist. And it just stomped the sh!t out of Lukvance's god. Oh well, so much for that......puny god.

I you can imagine a god greater than mine you'll face an impossibility. Please tell me how your god could be greater than mine. For now my god has the following definition. God : the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

the analogy just isn't work and you should give it up. Love and maths are things that happen in our brain - electrical and chemical things. The atheists argue that your god is like that - something else that is part of the workings of the brain but has no independent reality. Apart from medieval philosophy you have not shown us a single reason to suspect that your god exists at all apart from in your brain.If you really have no evidence for the existence of your god then, clearly, you should be asking yourself why you are not a atheist. Aside from that, atheists are not going to be swayed by arguments that lack evidence.

Math and love are what you guys talk about when I ask about immaterial things that exist outside your mind. If you think that they doesn't exist your mind, maybe you have a better example? I'm listening closely.